Make no mistake, the meeting of pro-life Democrats was only near the Democrat National Convention and not at it.

A group of pro-life Democrats gathered in a hotel near the convention the way that a teenage boy stalks the house of the girl who dumped him, with love unrequited.

This year not a single pro-life Democrat was allowed to speak at the convention, a convention that adopted the most radical pro-abortion plank possible while at the same time expunging any mention of God. I think God is happy that at least they have stopped pretending. But the pro-lifers in the party still won't take no for an answer.

They gathered for a panel discussion in a hotel conference room. The board of Democrats for Life of America present includes two former U.S Representatives and a smattering of academics, but not one sitting elected pro-life Democrat. Yet they still don't get the message.

Among the former U.S. Representatives is the notorious Bart Stupak, the man who cut the deal with President Obama to support Obamacare in exchange for an executive order prohibiting the funding of abortion that every pro-lifer without a D after his name knew was meaningless. But Bart Stupak and the other pro-life Democrats ignored the warning because they wanted to believe.

So now what does Rep. Stupak have to say now that the worst fears of his opponents have come to pass?

“To tell you the truth, I am perplexed and disappointed having negotiated the executive order with the president.” Stupak said during a panel discussion. “Not only does that HHS mandate violate the executive order, it also violates statutory law.”

“If you go back to the Omnibus Budget Act of 2009, passed by Democratic House, Democratic Senate and signed by President Obama, that is probably the most specific particular language that no funds can be used to promote abortion,” he added.

Talking about the HHS mandate, he said “I think it’s illegal. I believe it has contraceptive services, it also has drugs that induce [abortions].”

You, pro-life Democrats, still support the very man who lied and told you what you wanted to hear and then summarily dumped you. The same man that has issued, by your own admission, an illegal mandate to fund abortion and destroy religious freedom.

You support the same party that will not allow your minority voices to be heard.

You support the same party that has adopted as a core objective of the party to provide for taxpayer funded abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason.
You support this party why?

The panelists nonetheless said the broader goal of reducing the number of abortions in the U.S. would be served far better by Democrats, who they said supported the kind of healthcare and social services that would persuade more pregnant women to go through with pregnancies that they did not intend.

Your party wants to fund abortion and you still think it will reduce abortion? We all know that when you fund something you get less of it, right? If you believe that I have an executive order I would like to sell you. Oh that's right, you already bought it.

To “gap”, who posted that marriage was around long before Christianity, and that it was often “accompanied by multiple sexual and emotional partners of both sexes, and that “it was Christianity that pushed the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman.” This may well be true. But does this mean that polagomy should be legalized in our country? Several years ago, the Utah President of the National Organization Of Women
said
that if “NOW is about anything, it’s about choice,” and endorsed legal polagomy. As I understand it several polagamists have actually sued the government to have their relationships legalized. We know that such relationships constitute an abuse of both women and children. A marriage between one man and one woman is never perfect, I’m certain. But surely, it’s more stable than such polagamist unions. Food for thought. Respectfully. Tim Donovan

Posted by Joe C. on Thursday, Sep, 13, 2012 9:29 AM (EDT):

Gap, how do you get that out of what I said? I can’t even understand what you’re saying or the point you are making. Huh? I am not saying whatever it is you are trying to interpret me as saying and I have no idea what your point is.

Posted by Gap on Thursday, Sep, 13, 2012 8:30 AM (EDT):

Joe C. You are saying that people advocating that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a Christian assertion. It is a Christian assertion. Marriage was around LONG before Christianity. And it was not confined to what we consider it to be now. And it was often accompanied by multiple sexual and emotional partners of both sex. It was Christianity that pushed the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. Check your history.

Posted by mws on Tuesday, Sep, 11, 2012 9:39 PM (EDT):

@ Tim Donovan:Please keep posting. Your comments are well written and I’ve learned a lot from them.

Posted by Tim Donovan on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 9:30 PM (EDT):

Dear Mr. Samuel. I’m a little confused about youer comment to my post regarding NETWORK and Sister Campbell. I fully agree that NETWORK does good social jusice work, but Catholic clergy, religious brothers and sisiers are not primarily called to be social workers. Yes, the Catholic Church does have its problems. But surely, the work of the church both nationally and internationally far outweighs its problems. We’re all called to spread the Gospel. We all can’t work on every pro-life issue (opposing war, capital punishment, legal abortion, euthanasia, aid to the poor, hungry, disabled , elderly and immigrants). But I do think that the right to life is the primary issue of our time when voting. The Catholic bishops 2012 staement, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, has this to say.An analysis by Russell Shaw, noted Catholic author, states that” ‘Forming Consciences’makes it clear that issues with a direct bearing upon the life and dignity of the human persons necessarily come first. In that category are abortion, cloning, the deliberate destruction of human embryos, assisted suicide and euthanasia, together with questions of war and national security. This isn’t to say that economic and other matters aren’t important-the bishops give plenty of attention to them as well,with particular attention to marriage and family concerns. But the modern assault on the sanctity of human life requires that life issues be placed at the top of the list.“I don’t think it’s a mistake that abortion is placed first among the list of concerns. Further, the fact that Sister Campbell, although I repeat she’s undoubtedly a good woman, said nothing at all about abortion at the Democratic convention speaks volumes. I do agree that both parties have their defects. But as a former Democrat, I simply can’t abide the party’s threat to the religious freedom of Catholic healthcare ministries. Not to be repetitious, but individual Republicans (as well as Democrats) can be good people. Former conservative GOP Sen. Jesse Helms and his wife adopted a child with cerebral palsy. Liberal Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and his wife have also adopted a child, I believe. Former GOP Congresswoman Anne Northup has several adopted children. With much respect, Tim Donovan

Posted by Bill Samuel on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 8:27 PM (EDT):

Sister Simone Campbell said nothing at all relative to abortion when she spoke to the Democratic Convention. Furthermore, her group, NETWORK, does not work on the abortion issue. There is no indication that she is a pro-life Democrat, if you think pro-life includes being against abortion (she used the word, but in a different context).

Posted by Tim Donovan on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 2:12 PM (EDT):

With due respect to Mary Blair, I’m sure that Sister Simone Cambell of the Catholic lobbying group of sisters, NETWORK, has done some good as a religious. However, NETWORK is well known for its dissent from church teaching on many core matters, such as abortion. For instance, my former Congressman Bob Edgar, a Methodist minister, supported not only Roe v. Wade, but also supported using our tax-dollars to kill innocent unborn human beings. He was pretty well known for being disingenuous about his support for legal abortion-on-demand. He would emphasize his “personal” opposition, and was initialy inclined to present himself as a “moderate” on abortion. But his voting record was consistently “pro-choice.” Once in the early 1980’s, my parish Senior Citizens Group unthinkingly invited Rev. Edgar to speak in our school cafeteria. When our pastor cancelled his appearance, Father Ruhl was savagely attacked in the media for denying Edgar’s freedom of speech. The Congressman also criticized our pastor (although in a more civil way). For the 12 years he was in offfice, NETWORK endorsed Edgar for Congress. Sad, but true. With respect, Tim Donovan

Posted by Mary Blair on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 11:37 AM (EDT):

RE: “This year not a single pro-life Democrat was allowed to speak at the convention, a convention that adopted the most radical pro-abortion plank possible while at the same time expunging any mention of God. I think God is happy that at least they have stopped pretending….”

Where were you when pro-life Sister Simone Cambell addressed the DNC?

Posted by Kathleen on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 10:32 AM (EDT):

Jimmy Carter was a dissapointment as a president.I’m sorry now that I volunteered for him during his election.He’s recently made some semi-prolife statements, but hasn’t really taken a strong stand.
I think he’s basically a decent man-maybe as far as his understanding will take him- but not what many of us were expecting & hoping for.

Posted by Tim Donovan on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 12:07 AM (EDT):

Thanks, msw, who posted on Sept. 9 re: my position regarding Humanae Vitae. I do fully support Humanae Vitae. I support only the LEGAL option of contraception. Artificial contraception has been rooted in our nation for so many years that it would be impossible to again make it illegal, and frankly, while I’d urge all Catholic married couples to use natural family planning, I think it would be unwise, and frankly, inappropriate to make contraception illegal. (Although I certainly believe that the law ahould not permit minor teens to purchase contraceptives, as is commonly permitted). In the Philadelphia School District condoms are actually mailed to public school students as young as twelve years old, by Catholic Mayor Nutter! Clearly, condoms and diaphragms do prevent fertilization, and should be a legal option. Of course IUD’s and the various forms of the pill are, at least much of the time, abortifacients. So, I feel that such drugs, like surgical abortions, should not have to be provided by government mandate at Catholic or religious or secular hospitals who object to these drugs. I also agree that many, if not most Romney supporters are not ignorant. I was just pointing out that, in my experience, that’s the impression put forth by most of the media.
To Catholic Democrats who say that they’ll vote for the President because our bishops, in their “Faithful Citizenship” statement , say that we must look at the totality of life isseues, I must respectfully disagree. Even the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin,one of the foremost proponents of the seamless garment approach, said that, at times , one issue may outweigh others when choosing candidates for office.Surely, the right to life of the innocent unborn must be our primary concern. If, in good conscience, one can’t vote for Romney, then it may be best simply bot to vote in this election. I do feel that an ecumenical consistent ethic of life party would be ideal, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. Respectfully, Tim Donovan

Posted by mws on Sunday, Sep, 9, 2012 5:12 PM (EDT):

@ Tim Donovan: Thank you for your informative post. I agree with most of what you’ve written, except that you said you support Humanae Vitae but also support contraception (I’m assuming artificial), you refer to Romney voters as perceived to be ignorant. Some of the smartest people I know are Romney supporters—federal judges, board certified physicians (some with 8-10 years of specialty training post med school), principals, lawyers, and a few mathematicians and physicists.

I’ve read somewhere (I need to research the article) that the percentage of Catholic priests that have molested children is miniscule in relation to teachers, coaches, and others who have close contact with children. The media definitely does more stories on priestly molestation.

Posted by John Hinshaw on Saturday, Sep, 8, 2012 11:16 PM (EDT):

By the way, Jimmy Carter NEVER enacted ANYTHING to advance the cause of the unborn. He didn’t even propose any novel social programs to provide for abortion alternatives. It was he working feverishly to get rid of
Ellen McCormack. If he is the face of Pro-Life Democrats they cannot claim to know better than the rest of us how to protect the unborn. Any reference to Carter in such a context simply underscores the final sentence of your article.

Posted by John Hinshaw on Saturday, Sep, 8, 2012 11:04 PM (EDT):

When confronted with your logical and well-presented article, the Pro-Life Democrats (the Lord bless them) will retreat to bashing how Republicans failed to deliver enough protection to the unborn. For too many of them, their devotion is to the party their dad or his union or the nun who taught them in high school were all devoted in previous days. And they all learned that Republicans were against “the little guy”. It’s hard to grow up and realize your idols not only have clay feet but are determined to stomp you with them. They then round upon Pro-Lifers who are Republicans and complain about putting “party loyalty before the cause”. I became involved in the Pro-Life movement around the time of Roe v. Wade and belonged to neither party. My state had legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade by act of a Republican legislature and Governor. I had no loyalty to their party. It was only by watching serious gains being made in the National Republican Party (alas my state party is still pathetic) and the silencing of Pro-Life voices in the Democratic Party that showed me which way to go. I worked in the Ellen McCormack campaign and saw the Democrats go to almost any length to silence her. I saw the Clintons keep a sitting Governor of Pennsylvania off of their podium because of his Pro-Life views. It is true that Republicans have not done enough for the unborn, but often they have been deliberately stopped by the Democrat opposition. I may be angry at the firemen for not getting to my burning house in time to save it, but I would hardly hold them as accountable as the mobs that blocked their path in celebration of “choice” in the destruction. Last fall I asked a question of one of the leaders of Pro-Life Democrats at a forum: What do you do to restore your relevance after the White House betrayed you in Obomacare? He replied in excited fashion that they had met with the President and are, therefore, relevant. I say again: Lord bless them.

Posted by TomB on Saturday, Sep, 8, 2012 7:07 AM (EDT):

would you rather have people trying to change a party from within or have a one party system like they had in the Soviet Union.

Posted by Tim Donovan on Saturday, Sep, 8, 2012 1:14 AM (EDT):

I’m a former life-long Democrat, now a registered Independent, since neither party fully reflects my views. I favor gun control, war only as a last resort, and government aid to the poor, homeless, elderly, disabled and other vulnerable people, without creating a culture of dependency. I also oppose the death penalty, and gay marriage, and legal abortion (except when needed in accord with the Church’s teachings on “double effect”). Obama and Biden have done some good, and Romney and Ryan are hardly perfect. However, I will reluctantly vote for Romney. First, I agree that the remarks concerning “legitimate rape” by GOP Senate candidate Todd Akins were ridiculous and unscientific. But corruption and hypocrisy exist among people of both parties. Rev. Jesse Jackson once insultingly called Jewish people “hymies.” A North Carolina fundamentalist minister recently called for the extermination of gay people. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor, in 2008 baselessly accussed white people of deliberately spreading AIDS among African-Americans. Obama did eventually withdraw his membership in his church, but almost certainly for reasons of political expediency. In my home state (PA) a prominent former Dem. State Senator, Vince Fumo, is in prison for corruption, soon to be followed by GOP leader Joan Melvin Orie. The late Dem. Senator Robert Byrd was a Klan leader earlier in his career. David Duke, Klan leader and former GOP Louisiana Senate candidate, recently endorsed a black NY City Democratic Congressional candidate. Apparently, they are both anti-semitic.With respect to the comments of “starzec” that “no governement entity has the right to impose your religious beliefs on someone who does not share them”, I must respectfully disagree. The abolitionists were largely motivated by moral principles, and their beliefs were enshrined in our Constitution. The commendable civil rights movement was led by Rev. Martin Luther King, and joined by people of various races and creeds. Both liberal Rev. Al Sharpton and conservative Rev. Pat Robertson have run for President. The Peace Center of Delaware County PA (where I live) is heavily involved in partisan politics-it’s located in a Quaker Meeting House. My former Congressman, Bob Edgar, is a Methodist minister. During a failed 1990 U.S. Senate run, he preached from the pulpit, soliciting votes. Mrs. Obama recently spoke before a group of black pastors. She said words to the effect that there was no better place to discuss moal/political issues than in church. Doesn’t fairness require that all clergy have the right to speak out on political issues with a moral dimension? I happen to be a gay Catholic. I haven’t always been celibate, but have been for most of my life, and have found healing through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I have several gay friends, and we treat each other with respect,a lthough we obviously disagree on this matter. Further, the Nazis didn’t only target Jewish people. Millions of non-Arayans, disabled and elderly people, gays,priests, Christian ministers and gypsies were murdered. Incidentally, Rev. Jesse Jackson once opposed legal abortion-on-demand (see his speech in the 1977 edition of The National Right to Life News). Rev, Martin Luther King also opposed legal abortion (although he favored legal contraception, as do I). This has been confirmed by his niece, Rev. Alveda King, a woman who has had, and regretted, several abortions. I do support the teachings of Humanae Vitae. I’m sure many will say I have no right to speak on this matter, since I’m a man, and gay. However, during the Vietnam War, women were not eligible for the draft. Does that mean they had no right to oppose the war? People often speak out on issues that do not effect them personally, and should have the right to do so. The early feminists were against abortion (though they supported contraception). Susan B. Anthony, who helped win women the right to vote, opposed legal abortion. Quaker Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, in 1921 called abortion “the ultimate exploitation of women.” Today, polls indicate that many women favor abortion restrictions. These include a ban on most tax-funded abortions, a ban on most partial-birth abortions, and support for parental consent laws for minor teen girls (with judicial bypass). The pro-life movement is a coalition of people of many, and no, faiths. These include the Catholic Church, Orthodox Christians, the Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod, The Church of the Brethen(related to the Mennonite community), and most Orthodox Jews, and evangelical chuches. (In fairness, these faiths do favor some exceptions to a ban on abortion). Journalist Nat Hentoff, a self-described Jewish atheist and former Board Member of the NY Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, opposes legal abortion. Yes, it’s tragic that some women used to die from illegal abortions. But consider these remarks from the late Dr, Bernard Nathanson. He was an ex -abortion “provider”, and co-founder of what is now “Pro-Choice America.” In his 1979 book, Aborting America,” he admitted that he and his fellow activists grossly and deliberately exaggerated such maternal deaths. Thousands of Americans die annually form cocaine and heroin overdoses. Would it be sensible to legalize these drugs? It’s not commom , but there are even philosophers who favor infanticide for newborn disabled babies. These include Princeton Professor Peter Singer. I find this especially offensive, since I’m now partially disabled, and work part-time with a terrific young man with muscular dystrophy. Hardly a high paying job, but I enjoy the work, and his company, and his most loving family. Yes, it’s true that Romney has flip-flopped on abortion. But so has VP Joe Biden. While a Senator, he voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion, and usually voted against federal funds for abortion. He also called Judge Robert Bork a fine jurist, and pledged to vote for his nomination, even if it offended liberal groups. Now he simply kow-tows to the radical pro-abortion agenda of the Democratic Party. Preident Obama was even willing to shut down the federal government unless Planned Parenthood continued to receive government funding. Yes, PP does some good (HIV and cancer screenings, pap smears). But according to their 2010 annual report, they killed 325,000 unborn human beings in their clinics. They provided only 841 adoption referrals, and only 31,000 of their clients received pre-natal care, out of their millions of “clients.” Any standard medical text will confirm that a new human being begins life at the moment of fertilization. Yes, many early embryos are spontaneously aborted. But it’s also true that some infants die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, at a time when they are highly dependent on their parents. Are they any less worthy of legal protection? I’m ceratinly not ignorant (the stereotpe of the typical Romney voter). Without being prideful, I have a degree in Special Education, and have worked with disabled persons in various capacities (classroom aide, group home supervisor, Special Ed teacher, and volunteer Board member of a disability rights group). The President’s HHS regulations-despite his so-called compromises-will require Catholic and other religious hospitals to provide employee health coverage that will force them to dispense abortion drugs. According to a 6/16/12 AP report, one out of six Americans receive healthcare form Catholic hospitals. When our Hospitlas close -and sadly, they will- think of the resulting misery. Remaining hospitals will be overwhelmed by Patients. Yes, the clergy sex scandal is horrible. Abusive priests should be prosecuted, and their victims should receive counseling and financial compensation from our Church. But consider a 2002 study by Penn State Prof. Phillip Jenkins (an ex-Catholic, now Episcopalian). He found over a 20 year periof that married Christian ministers and NON-CLERGY (my emphasis added) were just as likely to be molesters as Catholic priests. Such abuse frequently is unreported to the police. So anyone-athlete, plumber, priest, parent, teacher, rabbi, minister, doctor, or your next door neighbor-could be a molester. All such despicable persons should be prosecuted. Respectfully, Tim Donovan

Posted by GregB on Saturday, Sep, 8, 2012 12:02 AM (EDT):

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*
The important part in the abortion battle is the phrase “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Posterity as in future generations of Americans, generations as of yet unborn. How does one “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for a Posterity that has been aborted?

Dismas ,
I know a little more about the Third Reich than Alinsky, so that’s my reference.

Posted by Dismas on Friday, Sep, 7, 2012 3:31 PM (EDT):

Wouldn’t Saul Alinsky rules for radicals be more appropriate rather than jumping straight away to the third reich retoric? On another note, Cardinal Dolan was stunning last night as always!

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Sep, 7, 2012 12:58 PM (EDT):

Joe C. ,
I keep making the Third Reich comparisons, but how is this different from the German Catholics who looked the other way?
Joe Biden has to know better.
I just can’t fathom it.

Posted by Joe C. on Friday, Sep, 7, 2012 11:48 AM (EDT):

I saw that Caroline Kennedy’s disavowal of her Catholic faith really disturbed Bill O’Reilly. Why are these people so surprised? Joe’s bishop in Delaware was furious with him for his pro-abortion support. I think at some point the bishops are going to have to make clear that these people are no longer Catholic when they actively support abortion and pro-abortion candidates.

Posted by Kathleen on Friday, Sep, 7, 2012 11:25 AM (EDT):

How about Mrs. Biden’s remarks during her speech at the convention last night? She talked about VP Biden’s “deep, Catholic faith.” Seriously?
I couldn’t believe it.

Posted by Joe C. on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 5:13 PM (EDT):

Well said, Sam, and the side effects of Obamacare (I do not agree with the good intentions part of your statement, though, as I think it is simply another entitlement designed to further the government’s agenda and control and social engineering) will result in Catholics having to pay for sterilizations, abortion pills and contraception - a violation of their religious liberty!

Posted by Sam Schmitt on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 5:04 PM (EDT):

That said, how is it that watching someone die of starvation or because they cannot afford health care any less evil than abortion? Anyone?? Far more people die at the hand of poverty than they do of abortion. Where is your outrage over this?

So abortion is evil, then? If so, shouldn’t we try to stop it? But then the Church is gong to change its teaching and say it’s not evil? (Can you blame me for being confused here?)

Anyway, yes, we have a healthcare problem in this country, but that doesn’t mean that Obamacare is the only possible solution or that opposing it means that one opposes improving healthcare for poor Americans. I agree with you that Obamacare is well-intentioned, but I hope we can all agree that good intentions will not improve things all by themselves.

Also, your abortion / poverty stat isn’t quite right, given that there have been about 300 million deaths from poverty since 1980, but over 1.2 billion abortions worldwide in this same time period. Not that it matters that much anyway for your argument.

Somewhere down the line, Catholics, you have been sold a bill of goods that people who are unemployed, poor and hungry because they want to be. That is simply not true.

Really? Do Catholics actually believe this? Is this part of Catholic teaching?
If the past 40 years are any clue, giving the poor money does not solve the problem - in fact, it can make it worse in that they become dependent upon the aid. The current model of social programs is not the only possible solution, and again, questioning this model does not mean that people are somehow “blaming the poor” or want them to suffer. The goal - helping the poor out of poverty - is the same as yours, but there can be different MEANS to do this. So claiming that people who do not support the same programs you do really don’t care about the poor is a little lame, don’t you think?

Actually, there are some people who are poor “because they want to be” - in fact they take a vow of poverty - Catholic religious men and women. Just a reminder that there are more important things than economic well-being.

Posted by Joe C. on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 5:02 PM (EDT):

Starzec, I have to ditto Kathleen: where do you come up with this stuff from these posts? No one is saying what you purport them to be saying. I can’t see anything in these posts that supports your assertions that anyone feels “that people who are unemployed, poor and hungry because they want to be”. Where are you getting this bilge?

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 4:27 PM (EDT):

starzec ,
I’m not comparing nationalized healthcare with killing Jews. Why do you see that in my comments? I’m comparing abortion with the killing Jews & other actions taken during the 3rd Reich.
I’m saying that some things are so intrinsically evil(abortion, eugenics,etc) that one can not in good conscience vote for politicians who support them on the one hand,even if those politicians are offering beneficial social programs & a better economy with the other hand.

Posted by starzec on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 4:15 PM (EDT):

Paul, really?? That’s all you’ve got?? I said someone would attack me and not the message. All too typical BS response. The problem is that no-one thinks and justifies everything through faith and how they interpret the bible.
Too bad. I believe you are missing the point. Abortion is bad, evil whatever you want to call it. So is starvation. So is poverty. Contrary to popular republican belief, people would not choose poverty and those that would are either mentally ill or in the clergy though I have not heard of bank foreclosing on a rectory or convent.
That said, how is it that watching someone die of starvation or because they cannot afford health care any less evil than abortion? Anyone?? Far more people die at the hand of poverty than they do of abortion. Where is your outrage over this?
Somewhere down the line, Catholics, you have been sold a bill of goods that people who are unemployed, poor and hungry because they want to be. That is simply not true.
Kathleen, the problem with your argument is you are comparing apples to mountain oysters. The Nazis specifically designed the “Final Solution” to eliminate Jews; that was the sole purpose. In contrast, the affordable care act’s purpose is to provide all Americans health care which would save far more lives than it will harm. There is no mandate that pregnant women must abort as the general public, contrary to Catholic belief, would not stand for it. Simply there is no comparison between the Nazis “final solution” and a form of national healtcare that will actually save lives.

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 12:04 PM (EDT):

Joe C. ,
Yeah. My take is just to insert “gassing Jews” for “aborting infants” into a “seamless garment” discussion. See how far that goes.
Sorry if that’s distateful, but could we accept any social program that provided benefits overall, but at the same time destroyed even a few Jews? It seems grotesque, but that happened just in my parent’s generation & in a cultured, highly educated European country.

Posted by Joe C. on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 9:59 AM (EDT):

To Kathleen:
I think we are in agreement and I believe that is what the bishops said - some issues are too important and serious and cannot be overlooked. I think what happened over the last decade or so was that some Catholics took Cardinal Bernadin’s idea of the seamless garment and made it a case for moral relativism, i.e., all death is equal, abortion, murder, war, capital punishment, etc., and used it as a justification to vote for pro-abortion politicians. There was a lot of moral confusion over candidates.

Posted by Kathleen on Thursday, Sep, 6, 2012 9:49 AM (EDT):

Posted by kathy wilmes on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2012 6:20 PM (EST):Did any of you read the “Faithful Citizenship” statement by the US Catholic Bishops? This important document states that we must not look at one issue when we vote, but the totality of issues.
What is pro-life? Does the definition end at the sessation of life at both ends of the spectrum, or does it mean much more; namely, the guarantee that parents having children have insurance, good medical care, jobs that provide an adequate lifestyle, an opportunity for good education, both K-12 and post secondary, and much more. Think about it”
*****************
OK,I thought about it.
I’m currently watching a DVD series on the Nazis produced by the BBC.What we as a society are increasingly willing to overlook-abortion, a slippery slope to legalized euthanasia,embryo use in research, etc-is not too different from what happened during the early years of the Third Reich. Folks were willing to look the other way when the human rights of Jews & others were destroyed, as long as their own lifestyles & the German economy improved.
Some things ARE more evil than others.The knowing & deliberate destruction
of innocent life is completely different from other social issues.It is no more OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate than it is to vote for a politician who would murder Jews or handicapped children.It’s evil, period.
Just my thoughts.

Posted by Joe C. on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:56 PM (EDT):

So, I guess the logic of the previous poster is that since a practice is widespread it should be legalized as in the case of drug use? How about drinking and driving, pedophilia and child abuse? Shouldn’t we legalize those practices? As far as I know, there are not many laws outlawing homosexuality on the books. It’s gone the way of spitting on sidewalks (and driving while texting or holding a cellphone). When was the last time you heard of a homosexual being arrested for practicing his homosexuality?

Posted by Joe C. on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:51 PM (EDT):

Last time I checked our “life” was considered a natural right and not a “religious” right. So, no one is forcing a “religious” belief on anyone. And aren’t the gays, attempting to force the oxymoron “gay marriage” onto the rest of and shoving their lifestyle down our throats violating that? I know of no Christian who is trying to ban homosexuality. They are simply saying marriage is between and man and a woman.That is the very nature of marriage - between a man and a woman. No one is saying gays can’t do what they want to do in private. You are either unclear or are intentionally distorting this discussion.
America was founded as Christian nation by people escaping religious persecution (for the most part). Not everyone in America was a practicing Christian, but the majority were. There will always be a tension between those who believe and those who profess no belief. In the case of abortion, it is either a human life or it isn’t, that is being taken. I think most Americans favor some restriction on abortion and if we could have a balanced argument and discussion, we might reach an acceptable compromise. This comparison to the Taliban is ludicrous.

Posted by Paul Zummo on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:47 PM (EDT):

Well that was underwhelming.

(A reference to the comment offered at 6:33 p.m.)

Posted by starzec on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:33 PM (EDT):

Somebody please help me understand how we still have such a one-sided conversation about abortion. Like it or not, the Constitution does not permit the Government to impose religious beliefs. Not Catholic belief, Not Christian belief Not Jewish beliefs not Islamic, Buddhist, Shinto Shamanism etc. NONE OF IT. You yourself can be pro-life all you want, but you do NOT get to force it on anybody. Why do you not understand this simple Constitutional fact? You can preach all you want about it and protest it until your heart is content but no government entity has the right to impose your religious beliefs on someone who does NOT share them; Several prolife studies show Catholic women make up nearly 1/3rd of all abortions so I guess even they do not believe in this particular doctrine.
I find it fascinating those pro-lifers here are also small government advocates too. News Flash!!! You cannot have it both ways. Either you want government out of people’s lives or you don’t. My guess is that you really don’t but because you “feel” over taxed it sounds good. Because if you were true libertarians, you would be fine with legalized drug use, prostitution and homosexuality. So really what you are the Christian Taliban seeking to enforce a Christian form of sharia law. No abortions, no homosexuals no drugs. You never actually do the math because if you did, you would realize that drugs are illegal and yet we have millions of drug addicts, realize that even when homosexuality was illegal, there were guys and gals doing their thing,and even when abortion was illegal, it was happening- That is what Roe v Wade was about in the first place!! My goodness don’t you people read!

Some of you are going to attack me as being a non Catholic or pro abortion; have at it, since you have no real arguments against my position. I am Catholic and do not wish a person to have an abortion if it can be avoided. I think there are other REAL issues out there needing our attention. Further, Church history shows that the Church evolves in its thinking. That the church actually accepts the sun as the center of our solar system is testament to that. Call me what you want and hide under the anonymity of this forum but I believe that while I will never see it (most likely neither will you) the church will change its position on abortion.

Posted by Joe C. on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:24 PM (EDT):

Yes, but don’t they make quite clear that some issues such as abortion, far outweigh these very legitimate social issues? I’ll have to read it again, but that was what I took away from it.

Posted by kathy wilmes on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:20 PM (EDT):

Did any of you read the “Faithful Citizenship” statement by the US Catholic Bishops? This important document states that we must not look at one issue when we vote, but the totality of issues.
What is pro-life? Does the definition end at the sessation of life at both ends of the spectrum, or does it mean much more; namely, the guarantee that parents having children have insurance, good medical care, jobs that provide an adequate lifestyle, an opportunity for good education, both K-12 and post secondary, and much more. Think about it

Posted by Joe C. on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:10 PM (EDT):

Well, that is an intelligent and nuanced comment. Guess the discussion had to degenerate into name calling and stereotyping and labeling sooner or later.

Posted by Veronica on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 7:06 PM (EDT):

We persist because we know the gop is universally evil, has driven this country into the ground under bush,, and abortions did not decrease, but rather increased under bush.

Posted by kathy wilmes on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 6:48 PM (EDT):

Last time I looked, Jimmy Carter is a prolife Democrat

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 4:13 PM (EDT):

Posted by Joe C. on Wednesday, Sep 5, 2012 3:09 PM (EST):(Not to be confused with someone else posting as Joe.) “
*************
Thanks for clarifying. I wasn’t sure whom I was agreeing with there.(It was you.)

Posted by Joe C. on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 4:09 PM (EDT):

(Not to be confused with someone else posting as Joe.)
Bush nominated Roberts and Alito and Obama has had 2 appointments to SCOTUS in less time than Bush had.I remember hearing the argument form “pro-lifers” who supported Obama the first time around that abortion would be lessened due to his emphasis on social programs for the “poor”. In fact, Pepperdine Law professor Doug Kmiec made this case as a “catholic” supporter for Obama saying that the abortion war was over, the pro-life side had lost, and to get over it. I defy the other “Joe” to find a republican president who has gone to such radical lengths to promote abortion as Obama. Our system generally works to stymy complete control of government by one party. Saying that republicans controlled the white House more than Democrats means nothing as the legislative body has largely been controlled by the “left” party over the last 40-50 years. A president is not a monarch and does not rule by decree (although Obama is doing his best to try and do so). I find it amusing (at best) that people are trying to still say there is parity between the two parties on this issue. This is one of the major issues that separate the 2 parties as the democrat party has been pro-abortion for as long as I can remember. Some Catholics just don’t want to acknowledge that. The sooner that party collapses, the sooner we can have a viable 2 party system that is more moderate.

Posted by Dismas on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 3:44 PM (EDT):

It seems to me the only phrase more oxymoronic than ‘pro-life democrat’ is ‘extinct life’. Based on their revised platform and the absence of God one might consider them atheist, however I suspect their ideology more resembles freemasonry. In this case, perhaps criticism is a most merciful and effective form of prayer?

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 3:26 PM (EDT):

Pat… I’m sorry, but grow up. You ask why the truly “Pro-Life” not just anti-abortion Democrats are there? Because the GOP has become Cain. Regardless of whatever lip service they give the bottom line is that more babies die due to their fiscal policies and rampant individuality that do to anything the Democrats have done. Lets remember that abortions took their biggest decrease under Clinton. Then once we had a “pro-life” President and Congress under GWB the annual data started showing up later and later… to the point that many groups were using Clinton era data to campaign for GWB against Kerry. Why did it start taking so long to get the data?!? We have faster computer system than ever before… it took so long because abortions were stagnating and increasing. Lets remember what party held office the most since RvW and lets remember who has put the most judges on the SCOTUS yet has done almost nothing to stop abortion. If there is one overall theme that runs from Genesis through Revelation it’s “I AM MY BROTHERS KEEPER” while here on Earth. The question God asked Cain is of the utmost importance, it’s why Sodom was destroyed and Christ repeats the correct answer multiple times in the Sermon on the Mount. I noticed you failed to mention the USCCB’s stance on immigration? or the fact that we wouldn’t be having the religious freedom discussion if we had public option like every other industrialized nation… their Bishops are focused not on religious freedom vs the Government they are able to focus on the least among us… perhaps ours wouldn’t be distracted if the Republicans in Congress had done their job rather than sticking their heads in the sand. Talk is cheap… anyone can say they are “pro-life” but when they truly don’t value life from conception until natural death, and vote against measures that would help children once born… it’s just talk. Perhaps you aren’t big on facts, that’s ok, you can even disagree with me but what those truly Pro-Life Democrats need are your prayers and your support, not your criticism as to why they don’t sell out and go for greed.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 3:20 PM (EDT):

Joe,
I agree with you.
The majority of Americans are pro-life-at least up to a point. The Democrats are really out of step on this issue. I think that’s why they have to turn it into a “war on women.”
As a woman, I find it very offensive that the best society can offer me is the option of killing my own offspring & treating fertility as a disease.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 3:15 PM (EDT):

Bill Samuel ,
Thank you for the explanation. Your original post said ““Other industrialized countries where abortion is illegal but who provide a good safety net have abortion rates a fraction of that in the USA,...”
You must have just mis-typed.

Posted by Eileen on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 3:00 PM (EDT):

@Bill Samuel - “Republicans oppose all programs to help people”. That’s a horrid thing to say.

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 2:59 PM (EDT):

But there is a difference. GWB rescinded some abortion bills on his first day in office by executive order. BHO rescinded GWB’s rescissions on his first day in office. This argument of moral parity or that they are both rotten is false and there are substantial differences between the two. Admittedly in romney’s case it is somewhat questionable but I have no doubt this Mormon father of 5 will be as radical as BHO on abortion with a staunchly Catholic VP. As the majority of the population has moved towards a less favorable view of abortion, the republican platform doesn’t seem as out of step as it once did. the democrats are clearly moving forward with as much abortion as they can muster and have integrated Planned Parenthood more deeply into the government and put Right to Life groups or protestors on the government watch list as domestic terrorists. All is not morally equivalent or equal and the differences are still substantial. I personally am surprised that the Democrats are pursuing such a radical pro-abortion agenda as I don’t think this is a winning strategy politically.

Posted by Eileen on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 2:49 PM (EDT):

While the Democrats are clearly the party of death, I think we need to be careful not to deceive ourselves that the Republican party is pro-life. I don’t think there are many (any?) politicians who wouldn’t sell their soul to be reelected. Under GW Bush, Republicans had both houses of Congress and the Presidency and we could get so much as a parental notification bill passed.

Posted by Bill Samuel on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 2:26 PM (EDT):

There is a chart of abortion rates at http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inID:12 Looking at Western European countries which are known for extensive social safety nets and which have legalized abortion, rates range between 7.3 to 20.2 per 1,000 women. The U.S. rate is 20.8. Sweden is the outlier here, being close to the U.S. rate while all the rest are significantly lower. Obviously there are many factors, and one can not really determine which ones are having which effects, but the fact that all of the countries in this group have lower rates than the U.S. and all provide much more substantial social safety nets is indicative.

Posted by Kathleen on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 1:54 PM (EDT):

Bill Samuel,
“Other industrialized countries where abortion is illegal but who provide a good safety net have abortion rates a fraction of that in the USA,...”
**********
Which countries are those?

Posted by enness on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 1:06 PM (EDT):

And Bill, if you have any trouble understanding why I just exploded, like many of our teachers probably recommended in our early years, I suggest you go find a quiet place to think about it for while.
You know what the pro-life movement really doesn’t need? ...Partisan infighting.

Posted by enness on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 1:01 PM (EDT):

Sadly, I could see pro-lifers being jilted by Romney too. Maybe it’s okay if we do not really feel at home with either big party.
-
Bill: “where right wingers who usually claim to be “pro-life” zealously fight against programs that would keep pregnant women from feeling so desperate that they kill their own babies.”
-
Shame on you, Bill! I don’t “claim” to be pro-life, I AM pro-life! I volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center. We are not an impersonal bureaucracy or a cattle-call “program.” We will not only provide the Thanksgiving dinner, we will sit down with you to eat it. We care about your soul and not just your situation. But the fact is, this is not just a win-by-numbers game to us, or else the accusation that we care more about the unborn than the born is true. A ‘solution’ that depersonalizes is actually part of the problem. If you disagree about what is the best way to reduce abortion, fine, but you’re attacking my credibility and many others’ and I am simply not going to take it.

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 12:49 PM (EDT):

I am a Republican and I am really tired of this mantra of “Republicans oppose all social programs”. We all believe in some of the basic programs for those truly in need. In fact, I would like to see an expansion of benefits for those who cannot fend for themselves. At the same time, I would like to see a reduction in benefits for those who game the system and are physically capable of work. I don’t know a single Republican who favors doing away with all social programs. It was Dubya who instituted the prescription drug program and Obama who cut Medicare funding to pay for Obama care. Reforming wasteful programs is not the same as favoring elimination. In fact, I wish the writers who constantly recite this would provide some evidence for their assertions. Otherwise they are simply repeating what the MSM continues to drum into empty heads without thinking about it critically. My mother and father are on Social Security and Medicare (just as Paul Ryan’s mother is). I would like to see the truly needy get a living benefit that is adequate. Obama removed the work requirement for welfare recently, that was signed by President Clinton under the welfare reform act.

Posted by MarylandBill on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 12:42 PM (EDT):

Bill Samuel,
Some thoughts….—
1. Association is not the same as causation. There could be lots of reasons that those other countries have lower abortion rates… in some cases it might be use of particular types of “birth control” which actually act as an abortifacient. —
2. Jesus advised his disciples to not stay in any town or village where they are not welcome, but rather to shake its dust off their feet. Certainly after 40 years of growing hostility to the pro-life movement, it is time to shake the dust off of our feet. Even the suggestion that some politicians are personally opposed but don’t believe the government should get involved becomes laughable when the party does everything it can to try and fund abortions.—
3. While I may not agree with the wars the United States has started in recent decades, they were generally from a real grievance. There is the possibility of Just War and the Death Penalty remains a licit if discouraged option as a means of punishment for serious crime. Abortion in contrast is never licit, never just and never moral.

Posted by c matt on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 12:35 PM (EDT):

I find it difficult to believe that there are a large number of Democrats who are pro-life (I eevn recall reading some estimate at 1/3).

Posted by Elisa on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 12:01 PM (EDT):

Two things:
-Earlier this summer, syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin wrote the NC state Democrats were having their own share of problems and scandals.
-There are quite a number Democrats who will be nowhere in sight for the convention for one reason or another-i.e. tight race in home district, unhappy with the president, unpopularity, etc.

Things aren’t so wonderful for them…

Posted by Lewis A Kapell on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 12:01 PM (EDT):

I don’t think that the people on the board of Democrats for Life are blind at all. For that matter, I don’t think they are really pro-life either. I think it is all a charade to help keep gullible pro-life Democrats (rank and file) from leaving the party. I say this, partly on general principle because I know how corrupt politics can be, but more specifically because of some things that their spokesmen have said. I can’t quote the exact words, but there were a couple of statements released around the time that Obamacare was enacted, really fishy things were said. One of the statements took a cheap shot at the Republican party; if they were really pro-life they would be more modest and show some humility regarding party affiliation. Their statement on Obama’s notorious executive order regarding abortion was the big flag to me - they praised it and said how wonderful it was that the President was protecting the unborn or some such nonsense. That was when I knew the whole thing had to be a sham.

Posted by Paul H on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:45 AM (EDT):

You are so right in everything you say here. And yet, I don’t see how abortion can ever be made illegal in this country until there is a significant pro-life contingent in BOTH major parties. As long as one of the two major parties is adamantly in favor of keeping abortion 100% legal, and especially when that party has the majority of the media on their side, abortion will remain a highly polarized partisan issue, and pro-life victory will remain elusive. However, I don’t really see a clear path to establishing a pro-life voice in the Democrat party. The Democrats for Life group has accomplished very little (at best) in bringing a pro-life voice to their party.

Posted by Mark Hartman on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:35 AM (EDT):

“not illegal” ==> “no longer legal”. I hate it when I do that.

Posted by Mark Hartman on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:34 AM (EDT):

@Pat Archbold - the simple truth of the matter goes back to the War Between the States (as we Southerners say, there wasn’t anything ‘civil’ about it). Plain and simple, the Democrat party is, and always has been, the party of slavery. This has not changed because it is not illegal to own another human being (at least, one that’s been born) - they treat the bodies of unborn children even worse than slaves, because they are regarded as INANIMATE property. They support abortion, even though the non-whites in this country receive abortions at a disproportionate rate, yet do not consider that discriminatory. And they aim to force the entire population into economic slavery by their policies. The Democrat party platform is finally clear, and it tells us that the Democrat party is as much or more a danger to the Constitution and to America as the Communist party.

Posted by Dismas on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:30 AM (EDT):

None so Blind indeed. In light of the 2012 Democratic Platform I can’t think of anything more oxymoronic than ‘Pro-life Democrat’. How can anyone perceiving themselves Pro-life, in good conscience, continue to remain a registered Democrat?

By their blindness, through disagreement and division, may they continue to splinter.

Posted by MarylandBill on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:15 AM (EDT):

Speaking as someone who is still technically a pro-life democrat (Never officially changed my registration since I am not sure Maryland’s Republican party is really pro-life either.. I am still pro-life :)). I can perhaps shed some light on what keeps many pro-life democrats in the party. This is what kept me in the party for as long as I was.—
1. Historically, true or not, the perception has been that the Democrats stood up for the working man, the oppressed, and the poor. At some point (maybe the very beginning) the party stopped caring about the working man but rather continued to throw him the odd bone in return for his vote. —
2. It is easy to mistake social welfare programs as genuine concern for the poor. They may have indeed started out that way, but even decades after some of them have been shown to have a terrible side effects on those they are suppose to help, people still fight for them as if the poor need them. It is easy to believe that it is only greed or evil that makes people want to cut these things.—
3. Too many Republicans are not really pro-life. I am not talking rank and file, I am talking the politicians. Sure, some are the real deal.. but many others, including I fear Mr. Romney appear to want to look pro-life to get the pro-life vote but not too anything that will alienate people who might be mildly pro-abortion rights. This makes it easy to rationalize that voting republican won’t change anything. Of course as we have learned this time around, there is a difference between someone who may not be committed to pro-life and someone who is committed to pro-abortion.—
Anyway, those are what kept me in… at least until we had a president who has been so dedicated to pushing a pro-abortion, anti-traditional values agenda that it became impossible for me to deceive myself any more.

Posted by Pat Archbold on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:09 AM (EDT):

Brian
You are correct and I have amended my post to say “mandate” instead. Thank you. He issues so many illegal executive orders I guess I just got used to writing that phrase! Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by Brian on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:05 AM (EDT):

“The same man that has issued, by your own admission, an illegal executive order to fund abortion and destroy religious freedom.”

Just as you did earlier at CMR, you have mixed a few things up a little bit. I Don’t believe Stupak was calling the executive order illegal. If you read the paragraph immediately preceding it, it says that he was speaking about the mandate, which violates the executive order, plus other laws, and is thus illegal.

Posted by Bill Samuel on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 11:00 AM (EDT):

Before reading the article, I thought the None So Blind would be the Democratic Party who can’t see that refusing to even acknowledge the large number of Democrats who are pro-life is politically foolish. There was at least some mention of that from the podium by Rep. Jared Polis, who himself always votes against pro-life efforts, who called for Democrats to provide support for pregnant women in difficult circumstances who are brave enough to go ahead and bear their children (although he only called for support after the child is born). That would seem to be the least one could ask, and there was no sign the Convention was receptive.

However, the commentary instead attacks those who are trying to point out the problem with the Party being so hostile to those who are for life. It seems to be they should be given some credit for continuing to witness before the Party bosses about the pro-life message.

I do agree with them that PPACA, even with flawed implementation of pro-life protections, will probably result in reducing the number of abortions. Other industrialized countries where abortion is illegal but who provide a good safety net have abortion rates a fraction of that in the USA, where right wingers who usually claim to be “pro-life” zealously fight against programs that would keep pregnant women from feeling so desperate that they kill their own babies. PPACA does include specific programs proposed by pro-lifers to aid pregnant women, and they are being implemented.

However, I do agree that there is a problem with putting loyalty to Party above principle. I think consistent pro-lifers should reject both corporatist parties. Obama is seamless shroud (for war, abortion and the death penalty), and the Republicans oppose all programs to help people as well as supporting war and the death penalty. Both are fairly considered anti-life parties.

Posted by Sherry on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 10:54 AM (EDT):

They persist because they would actually feel agony and shame if they ever allowed themselves to believe otherwise than that they were duped and the true intentions of this political party are not what they are doing/saying/spending money pushing, but something else.

Posted by Joe Coffman on Wednesday, Sep, 5, 2012 10:42 AM (EDT):

I can’t for the life of me understand these people and why they persist in the belief that they can change a party so radicalized that it defies description. It seems they should either remove themselves from the party or form a new democrat party more in line with their beliefs that people could flock to and support. The iron grip of the radicals on that party is not going to change or be released. Stupak has shown himself to be gullible beyond belief by believing Obama and needs to wake up. It’s like a bride who has been left at the altar and is still standing there days later with wilted flowers in her hand.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Patrick Archbold is co-founder of Creative Minority Report, a Catholic website that puts a refreshing spin on the intersection of religion, culture, and politics. When not writing, Patrick is director of information technology at a large international logistics company in New York.